10 Downing St Lobby Briefing: 11am Tuesday 20 Nov

Asked about the Prime Minister's speech in
Germany today, the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman
(PMOS) said that he was expected to develop some of the
themes he had set out in his Party Conference speech and in
his speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last
week.

AFGHANISTAN

Phonecalls/Update

The PMOS advised
journalists that the Prime Minister had had a twenty-minute
telephone conversation with President Bush last night as
part of their ongoing dialogue. He had also spoken to
President Musharraf.

Asked for further details about the
Prime Minister's conversation with President Bush, the PMOS
said it had never been our practice to give a detailed
briefing of such phonecalls, and he did not intend to start
now. Last night's conversation had been part of an ongoing
dialogue which the Prime Minister and President had been
having from the outset. Both had agreed that great progress
had been made in the last ten days. However, there was
obviously a lot more to be done. They had reviewed the
military, humanitarian and diplomatic tracks. Both had
welcomed the fact that the Brahimi-convened talks on setting
up the interim broad-based government in Afghanistan looked
likely to happen this weekend. We expected Mr Brahimi to
confirm today that a meeting of the different groups would
take place later this week, probably in Germany.

British
Forces

Questioned about reports of a rift between the UK
and US on the issue of deployment, the PMOS said that had
journalists listened to the Prime Minister's phonecall last
night with President Bush, they would have seen just how
baseless the stories about divisions were. As Jack Straw had
said today, there was a coalition. The US was in the lead
for obvious reasons. Our forces at Bagram were serving with
US forces and were under Centcom command (under General
Tommy Franks). Discussions were continuing in relation to
the question of exactly what 'follow-on' forces might have
to be used. Those discussions would continue and would
address questions of where, who, how and when. These issues
would be assessed and decided in due course.

Put to him
that he had said last week that the forces at Bagram airport
were under British command, the PMOS explained that the
overall force there was under Centcom command, given that
Centcom was carrying out the overall co-ordinating role.
Clearly there would be a senior British figure with our
forces at Bagram. The two things were not inconsistent. The
idea that the two countries were pulling in different
directions when their forces were actually operating
together on the ground together was nonsense. Asked how we
would respond if we reached a situation where we were
concerned about the wellbeing of our troops but the American
Commander on the ground was not, the PMOS suggested that
journalists were looking for difficulties which didn't
exist. He pointed out that our forces would not have been
deployed to Bagram had it not been for Centcom's
co-ordination of the whole operation and their subsequent
decision that British troops should be deployed there.
Questioned as to how that decision had been reached, the
PMOS said that different countries were making known
different assets to the US as part of their coalition role.
It was for the US to draw those assets down and use them as
they saw fit - hence the deployment of British troops to
Bagram.

Asked how long we could keep British troops on
48-hour standby, the PMOS said it could continue for some
time, depending on the situation. As we had said yesterday,
the decision to shorten the notice to move was not of itself
a decision to deploy. It had been a recognition that, given
the changing situation following the fall of Kabul and the
significant military advances, other issues had come to the
fore and it had been important to have forces on a state of
readiness to be deployed as required. We did not make any
apology for the fact that prior to making a decision as to
whether to send our forces into a fluid, difficult conflict
situation, detailed discussions would be had with our
allies, the situation on the ground would be given full
consideration and a detailed assessment about the
environment into which they might be deployed would be made.
The safety of our forces was of course one of our paramount
concerns. That would remain the case - and quite rightly
so.

Put to him that the UK and US were pursuing different
objectives in that the UK appeared to see the reconstruction
of Afghanistan as a priority whereas the US was focussing on
the capture of bin Laden, the PMOS said this was a false
caricature. He pointed out that a Reconstruction Conference
regarding the future of Afghanistan was taking place in New
York today and was looking at some of the longer term
issues, such as what measures might be taken to rebuild the
country. We had said from the outset that this was a
different sort of conflict to any other in the past. There
were different tracks - the military, diplomatic and
humanitarian - all of which were important. The military
campaign was continuing. In terms of the diplomatic track,
talks were being convened under the auspices of the UN's
Lakhdar Brahimi later this week. Stephen Evans had now
arrived in Kabul to establish a UK presence. He was due to
meet Francesc Vendrell today and would also be meeting Dr
Abdullah Abdullah of the Northern Alliance. The humanitarian
effort was also continuing. All three tracks were
progressing in parallel and all were interlinked. If
progress was made on one, it could open up opportunities on
the other two fronts, which was something we had to grasp -
as we were indeed doing. Following the fall of Kabul, there
had been widespread predictions that the city would turn
into a blood bath. That had not happened. Of course that was
not to say the situation was not fluid or difficult. It was.
Assessments therefore had to be made relating to the
situation at a given time.

Questioned about reports in
today's papers claiming that our forces were under siege at
Bagram, the PMOS said these stories were absolute nonsense
and to pretend this was some sort of 'Rourke's Drift'
situation was ridiculous. The forces there were carrying out
their tasks. They had excellent relations with the people on
the ground and did not feel threatened in any way. To
pretend otherwise was simply wrong. Asked if we were
concerned that there were only a hundred troops on the
ground, the PMOS said that the forces had a specific job to
do at Bagram - to secure the airport and undertake
reconnaissance work. We had already seen some of the
advantages in their presence there, specifically the fact
that Mr Vendrell and Mr Evans had been able to get into the
country and carry out their work. As we had acknowledged
throughout, this was a fluid situation. We did not have a
book where you turned the page and found that the next
chapter had already been written. Of course we were alive to
all the problems and difficulties. However, it was important
not to exaggerate, or indeed invent them.

Asked if he was
implying that we had not announced further deployments
because the situation in Afghanistan was considered to be
too unsafe at this stage or whether it was because there was
a sense that additional troops might not be required to
undertake the tasks we had initially identified as
necessary, the PMOS repeated that there was a developing
situation inside Afghanistan. Decisions would be made based
on judgements reached at a particular time. There was a
shared recognition with the US that 'follow-on' forces might
have to be deployed. Discussions were continuing between
coalition partners as to the questions which might flow from
that. People should be reassured that we were not rushing
into anything and were taking the time necessary to get it
right. We would certainly not be thanked were we to rush
into a potentially hostile, difficult environment which
could result in negative consequences.

Questioned as to
whether British forces at Bagram would be involved in the
security operation in terms of making sure that
representatives from Afghanistan's tribal and ethnic
groupings would be able to get to the UN-convened talks in
Germany later this week, the PMOS said that given that
British forces were securing the airport to enable people to
get into the country, it would follow that people equally
would be able to get out if necessary.

UN-Convened
Meeting

Asked for further detail about the UN-convened
meeting in Germany later this week, the PMOS said that it
was for Mr Brahimi to make an announcement. A lot of work
had been taking place on the diplomatic track in parallel
with the military campaign. The diplomatic track had not
started with fall of Mazar-i-Sharif. Discussions about the
establishment of a broad-based government had begun some
time before that in an attempt to bring about some stability
and help rebuild Afghanistan. Talks were continuing as to
how that process could be taken forward. We hoped an
announcement would be made today which would set out some
sort of 'route map' as to where we might be going.

Asked
who would represent the UK, the PMOS said that if our
presence was thought to be helpful at the meeting,
representation could be arranged at different levels.
However, in the end, what mattered was to bring the
representatives of the different tribes and ethnic groups
inside Afghanistan around the table. It was not us who would
be forming a government - it was them. We could help bring
about an agreement, but could not impose one. Questioned as
to whether British representatives at the UN could attend,
and if so who, the PMOS said it was perfectly possible. He
pointed out that Robin Cooper, a senior FCO official, had
been doing a lot of work on the diplomatic track there, but
underlined that our presence was not important when compared
with the presence of the different ethnic groups.

TERMINAL
FIVE

Asked why it had taken so long to announce the
decision on Terminal Five, the PMOS said that Stephen Byers
was making statement to the House this afternoon where he
would no doubt set out the background to his decision.
Pressed further, the PMOS said there were complex issues
which had had to be considered. Mr Byers would no doubt want
to mention the whole issue of timetables and planning
applications.

GIBRALTAR

Asked whether joint sovereignty
might be considered an option to resolve the difficulty over
Gibraltar and whether it would be put to a referendum, the
PMOS said that Jack Straw had made the position very clear
this morning. This was a process to resolve some of the
issues that were causing difficulty for the people of
Gibraltar - practical things such as the number of telephone
lines they were allowed to have. These problems were already
being resolved as a result of these talks. Our position
remained absolutely as set out in 1969. There could be no
change without consent. Any change in the status of
Gibraltar - and he was not indicating that any was planned -
would require a referendum as a guarantee that the people of
Gibraltar would have a say about their future.

Put to him
that Jack Straw had said this morning that any transfer of
sovereignty from Britain would require a referendum but did
not specifically say that this would be so with joint
sovereignty, the PMOS said that Mr Straw had been making the
point that there could be no change of sovereignty without
the consent of the people of Gibraltar. Joint sovereignty
would obviously amount to a change. The PMOS added that this
issue was not the focus of today's
talks.

In response to the challenges facing Scoop and the media industry we’ve instituted an Ethical Paywall to keep the news freely available to the public.
People who use Scoop for work need to be licensed through a ScoopPro subscription under this model, they also get access to exclusive news tools.

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C will require “far-reaching and unprecedented changes,” such as ditching coal for electricity to slash carbon emissions, says a special report that finds some of the actions needed are already under way, but the world must move faster… More>>

Oxfam and its local partners are standing by to deploy emergency staff and resources to the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, as an estimated 1.5 million people are thought to be affected by the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit on Friday. More>>

“This is a great day for India and for all those who believe in the universality of human rights," Bachelet said. "With this landmark decision, the Indian Supreme Court has taken a big step forward for freedom and equality...” More>>